Forum Statistics

Threads
26,165
Posts
514,442
Members
28,111
Latest Member
riffwraith
What's New?

Scary Headline in my Sunday morning paper

HDH

HDH

TID Board Of Directors
Sep 30, 2011
2,952
2,284
I'm just tired. I just don't feel like digging up sources and original docs to prove my points anymore. People will believe what they want to believe. I will list a few things going on right now. The info is out there if you are interested, if you are not already aware.

1. WHO is on their 2nd attempt to pass a world wide 126 country health treaty that will remove sovereignty on signatories to the treaty. the first one failed on 12 of it's 13 points. the committee was dissolved and repopulated with more cooperative people.

2. G20 just declared central band digital currencies are the path forward for the world currency and banking system. Health, carbon and social scoring to be implemented along with.

3. Elections don't exist. These are facades. Example:That Katie Hobbs, AZ Sec of State in charge of elections diud not recuse herself from election decisions, defeats Kary Lake strangely gaining incredible ground while the election counting took 6 days.
Ya man, they also signed papers for vax passports for international travel at the G20.

Hell, both the house and Senate agree the pandemic is over but the Biden Regime takes orders from deep state now. If he declares it's over, he gives up power over us.

Glad to see so many people coming around to the bullshit elections.
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1669066895854.jpg
    FB_IMG_1669066895854.jpg
    41.1 KB · Views: 9
tommyguns2

tommyguns2

Senior Moderators
Staff Member
Dec 25, 2010
5,851
4,049
I hear what you're saying, but it's one thing when private actors operate to censor, as the Constitution does not prohibit private action. For example, in my fast food restaurant, I can prohibit my employees from wearing Biden 2024 buttons or Trump 2024 buttons.

When things get dicey is when state action is involved. Neither local, state, nor federal gov't is permitted to censor a broad range of speech (almost anything). And the Louisiana/Missouri AG lawsuits are getting at the nefarious partnering of gov't with private actors to censor otherwise protected speech under the guise of misinformation. This is absolutely illegal.

It will be interesting to find out just how much collusion was going on between Twitter and the feds in banning accounts, banning topics, etc. There really does need to be perp walks on this kind of stuff, because if it's allowed to continue, it will explode.

Just curious, could the gov't collude with Google, FB, Twitter, etc. to label Christianity misinformation? If political speech protected by the 1A relating to voting rights, voting security, voting integrity can be censored at the behest of the gov't, why couldn't religious speech protected by the 1A be deemed problematic?

Scary stuff.
 
Last edited:
HDH

HDH

TID Board Of Directors
Sep 30, 2011
2,952
2,284
I hear what you're saying, but it's one thing when private actors operate to censor, as the Constitution does not prohibit private action. For example, in my fast food restaurant, I can prohibit my employees from wearing Biden 2024 buttons or Trump 2024 buttons.

When things get dicey is when state action is involved. Neither local, state, nor federal gov't is prohibited from censoring a broad range of speech (almost anything). And the Louisiana/Missouri AG lawsuits are getting at the nefarious partnering of gov't with private actors to censor otherwise protected speech under the guise of misinformation. This is absolutely illegal.

It will be interesting to find out just how much collusion was going on between Twitter and the feds in banning accounts, banning topics, etc. There really does need to be perp walks on this kind of stuff, because if it's allowed to continue, it will explode.

Just curious, could the gov't collude with Google, FB, Twitter, etc. to label Christianity misinformation? If political speech protected by the 1A relating to voting rights, voting security, voting integrity can be censored at the behest of the gov't, why couldn't religious speech protected by the 1A be deemed problematic?

Scary stuff.
Good question, they all did collude. FBI, DOJ and offices that were running has back doors.

They were telling them who and what to sensor.

It's like everything else, it was done out in the open but pushed down by social media and msm.

It's a simple look up. You will want to use duckduckgo or freespoke to find it.

You may have to look at a couple pages to find it.

I also saw Jen Psaki getting questioned about it after it came out. She did not deny it either.

It's how they are maneuvering against constitution.

They did it with everything. Masks, vaccines, lockdowns, changing election laws, etc...

None of this shit was legal but trump is the Nazi.
 
tommyguns2

tommyguns2

Senior Moderators
Staff Member
Dec 25, 2010
5,851
4,049
They did it with everything. Masks, vaccines, lockdowns, changing election laws, etc...

None of this shit was legal but trump is the Nazi.
So true! I'm the first to admit Trump is a grade A narcissist, but I laugh at the silly comments about a Nazi, when the Biden WH tried to create a ministry of truth! LOL
 
I

Iron1

VIP Member
Jul 7, 2021
104
155
What are your thoughts on how to address those who use their freedom of speech to incite violence against Americans?
 
Glycomann

Glycomann

VIP Member
Jan 19, 2011
573
251
What are your thoughts on how to address those who use their freedom of speech to incite violence against Americans?
Like claiming the unvaxxed are killing everyone? How do you feel about that now that even the MSM knows it was never true?
 
HDH

HDH

TID Board Of Directors
Sep 30, 2011
2,952
2,284
What are your thoughts on how to address those who use their freedom of speech to incite violence against Americans?
I'm not sure, how about you give me an example?

You know like maybe a recording of it so they can't snip out words to fit a narrative ;)

Thnx.
 
HDH

HDH

TID Board Of Directors
Sep 30, 2011
2,952
2,284
@tommyguns2

I tried to look up Jen Psaki dodging the question on colluding with social media but found a better one.

On this one she admits that the white house worked with Facebook on restricting and banning opposing views.


They did the same shit during the elections too.

They knew because a lady from Facebook did an interview and told them about it. Ya, dumb as shit too, lol
 
I

Iron1

VIP Member
Jul 7, 2021
104
155
Like claiming the unvaxxed are killing everyone? How do you feel about that now that even the MSM knows it was never true?
You answered my question with another question. Please circle back when you have a moment, I'll not proceed with answering yours until then.
 
Glycomann

Glycomann

VIP Member
Jan 19, 2011
573
251
You answered my question with another question. Please circle back when you have a moment, I'll not proceed with answering yours until then.
That's because your ilk look to decimate our constitution. I gave you a real life example of what you ask. There, you have your answer. You have no answer to my question because it traps you away from your nonsensical point. Your kind targeted those who refused the vaccine even when the VAERS system showed the three COVID vaccines, in just 2 months, killed more people than all other vaccines combined over 31 years. Yet your kind demonized those that understood the danger and refused. Thousands and thousands of health workers lost their jobs because of the mandates let alone other employees of numerous companies around the country. Your ilk's well bribed words led to loss of jobs and loss of lived for those that caved in just to stay in the work force. That you would pose such a question knowing what your ilk have cost just shows how your ilk twist the foundations of our country while committing the worst abuses upon them. If there is justice those who pushed this on our nation will pay the price and it might test freedom of speech, although I am sure with the examination of accounts and thorough investigation of events other routes will be more applicable. Criminal homocide: comes to mind i.e. intentionally or knowingly causing the death of one or more individuals, or worse following onto a massive fraud and democidal campaign inflicted on the American people by a collusive campaign of government agencies major media companies/monopolies and pharmaceutical companies.
 
I

Iron1

VIP Member
Jul 7, 2021
104
155
Don't be silly, I asked a question because I like to understand perspectives. Talking to a wide range of people is a good way to break down whatever preconceived notions I myself have. And if nothing else, I learn something about the way some folks think.

To answer your question; The media chose to use divisive speech as propaganda to align people to polar view points. People are easy to influence when they're divided and scared. I don't agree with any entity making hyperbolic claims that the unvaxxed are killing people or that the vaccine itself kills people. Those scenarios do exist in some fringe statistic and there is gray area in all of it but for the vast majority of people who fall under the bell curve, neither apply. When the media is reporting anything, facts are facts and the hyperbolic speech added on top to drive emotion is propaganda. That's the root of my question; is hyperbolic and targeted speech still a inalienable right when it's used for propaganda, anarchy, violence and mayhem?

If I read correctly, you feel like the MSM was abusing it's freedom of speech in your example? If so, I completely agree. The statement then implies "what is the limit of free speech"?

What we're talking about here is a very slippery philosophical slope which is why my question was phrased as how to address those that abuse it. To say that freedom of speech must be limited will imply that there needs to be some sort of oversight entity. An oversight entity that only allow speech that fits their template will inevitably succumb to greed allowing anyone with enough money to modify and influence that template in nefarious ways. The flip side of that being ultimate freedom of speech which itself has it's own issues as we discussed using your unvaxxed MSM example. I don't think there can be a right or wrong answer, just opinions.

Musk buying Twitter gets me wondering what would happen if he came right out and publicly said that any message you pay enough to post will receive worldwide attention on an individual level regardless of what that message is or your intent in posting it. Imagine the power that would give anyone with enough money to wield it. I think that's something we should all put under scrutiny when one man owns what could be argued as the mouthpiece of the western world.
 
Last edited:
Glycomann

Glycomann

VIP Member
Jan 19, 2011
573
251
Bottom line is the Constitution has a remedy and that is the Supreme Court. They are the final arbiter of how the Constitution is interpreted. As far as the vaccine, I have been around vaccines for decades. What I've seen personally most have not.
 
Who is viewing this thread?

There are currently 0 members watching this topic

Top